Tipex Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Fantastic news! Ian Brady, Ian Huntley -ect will now be allowed to vote. *SHAKES HEAD* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Prisoners should have the vote, it discourages keeping political prisoners. It harms our democracy if the government can deny groups of people the vote, especially prisoners. chem1st gave the best example with anti-homosexuality laws, I think a majority of us can now agree they were unjust, but gays couldn't vote against them if they were in prison. It leaves open the chance a bad government could imprison a few extra opposition party supporters in key marginals before an election too. It's just better if the government doesn't have the power to take away people's votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Fantastic news! Ian Brady, Ian Huntley -ect will now be allowed to vote. *SHAKES HEAD* Not quite. The government will have to decide how they are going to interpret the law. Some prisoners will probably be allowed to vote, others will probably not be allowed to vote. Perhaps they might adopt the voting system which seems to be so popular in Sheffield? - Have everybody queue up to vote and then close the polling stations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Perhaps they might adopt the voting system which seems to be so popular in Sheffield? - Have everybody queue up to vote and then close the polling stations. It didn't work, Nick Clegg still got in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 4, 2010 Author Share Posted November 4, 2010 Having read the arguments here, I think something obvious needs stating. The point at issue is whether or not prisoners should lose *all* their civil rights. Or at any rate, *which* civil rights a prisoner loses. Obviously they lose their rights to freedom of movement and freedom of association. If you have prisons, then that's the minimum, isn't it. There aren't many people who oppose prisons completely, though there are some. And of those who do, very few of them would oppose any corrective measures against anti-social behaviour at all. So for the most part the argument here is between those who think that prisoners should only have their right to liberty taken away, and those who think they forfeit other rights, or all rights. There are those who would say that prisoners have no rights at all. No right to justice, for example, if they are attacked or whatever in prison. Most prisoners are going to be released. I guess we don't want them to be released in an even worse state, as people, than when they went in. So those who want to try and rehabilitate would want to make sure prisoners have the right to justice, the right to be properly fed and housed and not maltreated, and so forth. And, yes, why not, the right to vote, if they want to use it. The point I'm making here is that there is a fundamental difference between approaches to imprisonment. I think it would be helpful if both sides could make some attempt to understand where the other side is coming from and what the arguments actually are. I think they have been proved to be irresponsible and immoral so why do they deserve a vote? We aren't talking about medical treatment, food, and living conditions which are the rights I would want prisoners to have we are talking about having a say in how our country is run. I think having murdered/tortured/raped/attacked someone it is fair to say you have forfeited that right. I am glad that they won't all get the vote and I assume very few will, just enough to get around the ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagaul101 Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Someone did mention you judge a country by the way it treats its prisoners, some food for thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 4, 2010 Author Share Posted November 4, 2010 Someone did mention you judge a country by the way it treats its prisoners, some food for thought So if we give prisoners freedom and lots of cash that makes us a better country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 And, yes, why not, the right to vote, if they want to use it. Having given up the right to live within society due to their lawless conduct why should they have a say in that society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 I think they have been proved to be irresponsible and immoral so why do they deserve a vote? We aren't talking about medical treatment, food, and living conditions which are the rights I would want prisoners to have we are talking about having a say in how our country is run. I think having murdered/tortured/raped/attacked someone it is fair to say you have forfeited that right. I am glad that they won't all get the vote and I assume very few will, just enough to get around the ruling. Couldn't agree more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Well thought out post Dannyno; there are those that say prisoners have no rights at all, but fortunately they're wrong. I think prisoners having the vote is a great idea and not before time.Well you would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.